A federal appeals court has temporarily paused enforcement of a San Diego federal judge鈥檚 ruling that had cleared the way for school staff to tell parents about possible changes to their child鈥檚 gender presentation without the student鈥檚 consent.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a short-term administrative stay of the ruling but has not yet decided whether to grant a longer-term stay pending an appeal. It鈥檚 expected to rule on that next week.
The case, Mirabelli v. Olson, began in 2023 when two Escondido Union School District teachers sued over the district鈥檚 policy, based on state guidance at the time, prohibiting employees from disclosing what it called a student鈥檚 transgender or gender-nonconforming status absent the student鈥檚 consent.
The state has said that doing this risks outing a student who may be transgender or gender-nonconforming to their parents, creating an unsafe school environment and violating state privacy and non-discrimination laws.
But Judge Roger Benitez ruled last week in favor of the plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit. He said parents have a constitutional right, as part of their rights to raise and care for their children, to know about their child鈥檚 gender presentation, and that they deserve to know if their child is gender-nonconforming.
Benitez also issued a permanent injunction barring California public school employees from misleading parents about their child鈥檚 gender presentation at school鈥攆or instance, by using different pronouns for a student with their parents than the student uses at school. He also barred the state from in any way interfering with a teacher or staff member telling parents about their child鈥檚 gender.
State lawyers who are defending the case immediately appealed and asked for a stay of the ruling in the meantime.
The state argued in its for a stay that Benitez鈥檚 ruling would 鈥渃reate chaos and confusion among students, parents, teachers and staff.鈥�
Benitez鈥檚 ruling does not order school employees to proactively notify parents about their child鈥檚 gender presentation at school. But his ruling does say that school employees cannot mislead parents about it, raising questions as to whether his ruling could require teachers to tell parents if the parents asked them.
The ruling may be at odds with a state law that went into effect a year ago, , prohibiting public schools from requiring staff to disclose anything about a student鈥檚 sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression without the student鈥檚 consent, unless otherwise required by law. AB 1955 does not, however, prohibit teachers from telling parents about their student鈥檚 gender.
To the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus, which supported that legislation, Benitez鈥檚 ruling posed a clear conflict.
鈥淚t would have created fear, confusion, and conflicting legal obligations,鈥� the caucus said. 鈥淐alifornia law is clear that schools cannot compel 糖心动漫vlog to forcibly out students.鈥�
Because of Benitez鈥檚 order, state attorneys said 鈥渢here is a serious risk that teachers and schools will begin disclosing sensitive information about students鈥� gender identities and expression鈥攊nformation that students disclosed relying on existing statutory and regulatory protections.鈥�
Benitez had the state鈥檚 initial request for a stay of his ruling. He said the state had been confusing and inconsistent on the question of whether teachers can notify parents if their child鈥檚 gender presentation changes.
Last year, the state education department withdrew its long-standing guidance that prohibited school staff from telling parents about a student鈥檚 transgender or gender-nonconforming status.
Despite backtracking on its official guidance to schools, the state has continued to argue in court that school staff must not tell parents without the student鈥檚 consent.
Paul Jonna, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, filed an motion Tuesday to the state鈥檚 request for a longer stay of Benitez鈥檚 ruling.
He said the state had been contradictory in alleging there would be emergency-level irreparable harm from the ruling, considering it had already withdrawn its guidance. Escondido had also backed away from its policy.
